As much as economists like to pretend, capitalism is not a political system. The goal is exploitation because we choose so. As a society we could just as easily choose to make our goal the maximal fulfillment of the needs of the public. All that takes is preventing those without a personal concept of “enough” from controlling capital.
Exploitation is fundamental to the existence of capitalism, it cannot exist without it, at least in my opinion, and the opinion of many other economists.
In neoclassical economics (or at least to plenty of neoclassical economists - neoclassical being the prevalent theory in modern western society), the term “exploitation” refers to the exploitation of labour, which is when wages are lower than the marginal productivity of labour.
To put it simply, surplus value is the difference between the value added by the labourer (for example, the assembly of car parts into a car, or turning raw materials into a product), and the wages they are paid.
Surplus value also has another name: profit.
The whole basis of capitalist economics is to prioritize, reward and encourage the maximization of profit. Based on my statements above, there is only one way to do that: exploiting labour. Thus, exploitation is not only prevalent in capitalism, but encouraged, rewarded, and required, otherwise the business will fail because it cannot keep up.
The definition of capitalism has nothing to do with how the profits are distributed. As long as individuals or businesses own the means of production and prices are determined by the free market rather than the government, that is capitalism.
That’s just not possible when you factor in both accumulation of wealth (it’s exponential like compound interest) and the competition between capitalists for profit. The competition does not come from their moral beliefs but from the incentives created by the system itself.
All that takes is preventing those without a personal concept of “enough” from controlling capital.
This would require to remove capital from the hands of individuals and either throw it in the hands of the state, or change its (corporate) ownership to co-op model (one worker - one vote). Both have been shown to work but that would no longer be capitalism but instead a form of socialism, as private capital would no longer dictate what’s produced in the economy and how it’s distributed. Instead it would be dictated by the state which is controlled by the people through some form of democracy, or democratically by the workers within each corporation, or both. In both cases what’s produced is dictated by the needs of the majority of the workers in that state. And that’s textbook socialism.
Accumulated wealth is a choice. We can tax inheritance at 100% beyond a certain point (say 100,000x the federal minimum wage).
The competition does not come from their moral beliefs but from the incentives created by the system itself.
Disagree. It is a choice to not say to yourself “I have enough. I am stopping work and donating all this wealth I don’t need to charity.” It is a choice not to make your fortune, retire, and then give ownership of the company to the employees who made you successful. Society once chose to treat homosexuality as a mental illness. No reason we couldn’t do the same for greed.
We say people can’t use slave labor. We say kids can’t work. There is no reason we couldn’t say people above a certain wealth threshold can’t work. That’s just regulation, not socialism.
Das Kapital was published in 1867. Modern psychology is considered to have begun in 1879. The first DSM was not published til 1952. Marx understood economics but he has an archaic understanding of human psychology which cripples his work.
Capitalism is an exploitation system. It will exploitation what it needs to, to ensure it continues. If that is policies then it will do so. Preventing those without the concept of enough from controlling capital is an an uphill battle. Easier said than done
Theft and rape get muddy but we still prosecute those. Society needs to draw a line somewhere.
For example say 100% tax after $50 million net worth. Or 1 year in jail for executive officers of a company if the net income (stock counts as income valued at the price when acquired) of the highest paid person in a company makes more than 30x the lowest paid person. Or we just drone strike Forbes richest person every year. We just need to draw a line.
As much as economists like to pretend, capitalism is not a political system. The goal is exploitation because we choose so. As a society we could just as easily choose to make our goal the maximal fulfillment of the needs of the public. All that takes is preventing those without a personal concept of “enough” from controlling capital.
Exploitation is fundamental to the existence of capitalism, it cannot exist without it, at least in my opinion, and the opinion of many other economists.
In neoclassical economics (or at least to plenty of neoclassical economists - neoclassical being the prevalent theory in modern western society), the term “exploitation” refers to the exploitation of labour, which is when wages are lower than the marginal productivity of labour.
To put it simply, surplus value is the difference between the value added by the labourer (for example, the assembly of car parts into a car, or turning raw materials into a product), and the wages they are paid.
Surplus value also has another name: profit.
The whole basis of capitalist economics is to prioritize, reward and encourage the maximization of profit. Based on my statements above, there is only one way to do that: exploiting labour. Thus, exploitation is not only prevalent in capitalism, but encouraged, rewarded, and required, otherwise the business will fail because it cannot keep up.
What would differ is where the profit goes. It doesn’t have to go to one individual.
It ought to go to the people who created the value, but that wouldn’t be capitalism unless they are self-employed.
The definition of capitalism has nothing to do with how the profits are distributed. As long as individuals or businesses own the means of production and prices are determined by the free market rather than the government, that is capitalism.
That’s just not possible when you factor in both accumulation of wealth (it’s exponential like compound interest) and the competition between capitalists for profit. The competition does not come from their moral beliefs but from the incentives created by the system itself.
This would require to remove capital from the hands of individuals and either throw it in the hands of the state, or change its (corporate) ownership to co-op model (one worker - one vote). Both have been shown to work but that would no longer be capitalism but instead a form of socialism, as private capital would no longer dictate what’s produced in the economy and how it’s distributed. Instead it would be dictated by the state which is controlled by the people through some form of democracy, or democratically by the workers within each corporation, or both. In both cases what’s produced is dictated by the needs of the majority of the workers in that state. And that’s textbook socialism.
Accumulated wealth is a choice. We can tax inheritance at 100% beyond a certain point (say 100,000x the federal minimum wage).
Disagree. It is a choice to not say to yourself “I have enough. I am stopping work and donating all this wealth I don’t need to charity.” It is a choice not to make your fortune, retire, and then give ownership of the company to the employees who made you successful. Society once chose to treat homosexuality as a mental illness. No reason we couldn’t do the same for greed.
We say people can’t use slave labor. We say kids can’t work. There is no reason we couldn’t say people above a certain wealth threshold can’t work. That’s just regulation, not socialism.
How to make a cluekess dude read Marx? It’s baffling that we have to answer the same questions again and again.
New questions for you to answer: https://archive.org/details/19thcenturyphil
Sheesh. 🤷♂️
Das Kapital was published in 1867. Modern psychology is considered to have begun in 1879. The first DSM was not published til 1952. Marx understood economics but he has an archaic understanding of human psychology which cripples his work.
Capitalism is an exploitation system. It will exploitation what it needs to, to ensure it continues. If that is policies then it will do so. Preventing those without the concept of enough from controlling capital is an an uphill battle. Easier said than done
Not if you make greed a capital offense (pun intended).
Sure but who will enforce that what is defined as greed? It gets very muddy
Theft and rape get muddy but we still prosecute those. Society needs to draw a line somewhere.
For example say 100% tax after $50 million net worth. Or 1 year in jail for executive officers of a company if the net income (stock counts as income valued at the price when acquired) of the highest paid person in a company makes more than 30x the lowest paid person. Or we just drone strike Forbes richest person every year. We just need to draw a line.
Love that idea!